AMIT PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3, the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Bettiah pursuant to certain Government policies placed orders for supply of certain medicines to M/s Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, a Government of India Enterprise. The petitioner is the local representative at Patna of M/s Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals and, as such, was directed by its principal to make supplies of medicines as per purchase order and receive payments. Petitioner made supplies as far back as in the year, 2000 -2001 and since then has been running around for payment. The payment is substantially not disputed yet it is not being made because of lack of fund allocation. In the counter affidavit, it is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 18,26,283.12P was payable to the petitioner as against the claim of the petitioner for Rs. 19,18,460.4 7P. Therefore, the position is that State does not deny its liability to pay at least an amount of Rs. 18,26,283.12P. This amount is due and payable since the year, 2001. That in the case of M/s Hindustan Equivalent Citation:2007 -PLJR -1 -31 Sugar Mills vs. State of Rajasthan and others since reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1681, the Apex Court has held thus:

(3.) IN the present case, the stand of the State is that payment could not be made because of non -allocation of adequate funds. It is not in dispute that pursuant to order, medicines were supplied and consumed. Therefore, non -payment would per se be arbitrary.